Development of Procedural Understanding through Constructivist Writing Among Pre-university Students in Laboratory Lesson
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/cs7g6k74Keywords:
Constructivist Writing, Procedural Understanding, Laboratory LessonAbstract
This study intended to explore how pre-laboratory activity specified in the constructivist writing approach could promote students’ development of procedural understanding in the laboratory. A group of 15 preuniversity students from one of the Form 6 Centers at the West Coast Division of Sabah was given laboratory work with an inquiry-based strategy. Data was collected from students’ writing tasks during the pre-laboratory activity and was triangulated with their conversation during the activity and reflection report. The students’ procedural understanding was analyzed with a qualitative method using document analysis of the writing task, reflection report, and conversation analysis. The laboratory lesson is an inquiry-based instruction with an argumentative teaching method on the topic of organic chemistry. The finding shows the pre-laboratory writing tasks, teachers’ guidance throughout the lab investigations, and students’ prior knowledge have a significant influence on the development of students’ procedural understanding. This study suggests emphasizing the constructivist writing approach in the prelaboratory activity and teachers’ guidance for students to enhance their procedural understanding through prior knowledge to solve a scientific problem.
Downloads
References
[1] Kodani S, Fukuda M, Tsuboi Y, Koga N. Stepwise approach to Hess’s law using household desiccants: A
laboratory learning program for high school chemistry courses. J Chem Educ. 2019.
[2] Schmidmaier R, Eiber S, Ebersbach R, Schiller M, Hege I, Holzer M, et al. Learning the facts in medical
school is not enough: Which factors predict successful application of procedural knowledge in a laboratory
setting? BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:1–9.
[3] Rajendran NS. Teaching and acquiring higher-order thinking skills: theory and practice. 1st edition. Tanjong
Malim, Perak: Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 2008.
[4] Schalk HH, van der Schee JA, Boersma KT. The Development of Understanding of Evidence in Pre-University Biology Education in the Netherlands. Res Sci Educ. 2013;43:551–78.
[5] Warwick P, Siraj-Blatchford J. Using data comparison and interpretation to develop procedural
Understandings in the primary classroom: Case study evidence from action research. Int J Sci Educ.
2006;28:44–467.
[6] Harrison M. Making practical work work: using discussion to enhance pupils’ understanding of physics.
Res Sci Technol Educ. 2016;34:290–306.
[7] Abrahams I, Millar R. Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a
teaching and learning methods in school science. Int J Sci Educ. 2008;30:1945–69.
[8] Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Kirschner F, Zambrano JR. From Cognitive Load Theory to Collaborative
Cognitive Load Theory. Int J Comput Collab Learn. 2018;13:213–33.
[9] Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work. Educ. Psychol. 2006; 41 March 2015:87–98.
[10] Hand B. Science inquiry, argument, and language. A case for the science writing heuristic. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers; 2008.
[11] Van Duzor AG. Using Self-Explanations in the Laboratory to Connect Theory and Practice: The
Decision/Explanation/Observation/Inference Writing Method. J Chem Educ. 2016;93:1725–30.
[12] Van Duzor AG. investigating process-based writing in chemistry laboratories. In: Sunal DW, Emmett L. Wright, Sundberg C, editors. the impact of the laboratory and technology on learning and teaching
Science K-16. 1st edition. North Carolina: Information Age Publishing Inc., 2008, pp. 135–66.
[13] Hand B, Norton-Meier L. I Will Just SWH It: The Learning Lens of Teachers as They Engage in the
Exploration of Argument-Based Inquiry. J Adolesc Adult Lit. 2018;62:223–6.
[14] Gott R, Duggan S. Investigative Work in the Science Curriculum. Developing Science and Technology
Education. Open University Press; 1995. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED390642.
[15] Roberts R, Gott R. Procedural understanding in biology: how is it characterized in texts? Sch Sci Rev.
2000;2:83–91.
[16] Millar R, Lubben F, Gott R, Duggan S. Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and
procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Res Pap Educ. 1994;9:207–48.
[17] Surif J, Ibrahim NH, Mokhtar M. Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Problem Solving. Procedia
Soc Behav Sci. 2012;56:416–25.
[18] Prain V, Hand B. Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teach. Teach. Educ.
1996;12:609–26.
[19] Prain V, Waldrip B. An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of
concepts in primary science. Int J Sci Educ. 2006;28:1843–66.
[20] Sampson V, Walker JP. Argument-Driven Inquiry as a Way to Help Undergraduate Students Write to
Learn by Learning to Write in Chemistry. Int J Sci Educ. 2012;34:1443–85.
[21] Yoon Lay Fah. Science process skills, logical reasoning ability, attitude toward science and locus of
Control: Relationship to learning science. Kota Kinabalu: UMS, 2010.
[22] Vygotsky. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press; 1978.
[23] Reigosa C, Jiménez-Aleixandre MP. Scaffolded problem-solving in the physics and chemistry laboratory: Difficulties hindering students’ assumption of responsibility. Int J Sci Educ. 2007;29:307–29.
[24] Sadler TD, Fowler SR. A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Sci. Educ. 2006;90:986–1004.
[25] Sendur G. An examination of pre-service chemistry teachers’ meaningful understanding and learning difficulties about aromatic compounds using a systemic assessment questions diagram. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2020.
[26] Cronin M, McCabe A. The benefits of individual versus group work in a biology-based laboratory setting. Int J Res Stud Educ. 2017;7:65–76.
[27] Cooper MM. An Introduction to Small-Group Learning. In: Chemists’ Guide to Effective Teaching. 2nd edition. New Jersey; 2005. p. 117.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 AUTHOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
